by Flyer » 02 Jan 2019, 11:46 pm
Mate, if you can't see the difference in glass between a Z5 and a Nikon, then I'm not sure what to say. I've owned a lot of different scopes - Weaver, Nikon, Leupold - and looked through a whole lot more - all the ones you've list - and the difference between a good scope and an average scope is much more than "brightness". There's resolution, clarity, chromatic aberration, dispersion, vignetting, field of view, smoothness of operation, tracking and repeatability, robustness, water proofing, dust proofing, eye relief stability, parallax, weight, warranty . . . the list goes on. Of course a 36mm objective isn't going to be as bright as a 50mm!
The Habicht is an old scope equivalent to a Z3 - the glass isn't comparable to a Z5.
You don't have to mess with parallax in the field - you can set it to 100m and be done with it. Or, if you have time, you can use it as a rough range meter. If you spend a lot of time behind a scope, parallax adjustment is a godsend - stops you going blind! (I'm only half joking)
And what is wrong with a 3.5-18x scope on a 22 hornet? I've got a 5-25 on a 223 and I use it all the time - because I can. You can always dial down a bigger scope - you can't dial up a small one . . .
The guy wants one nice rifle and one nice scope to put on it. I've owned cheap scopes and mid-prices scopes and I'm pretty much done with them. I've got a great Weaver Grand Slam 4-16x44 on my 17hmr which I reckon is one of the best scopes in its price range - excellent Japanese glass, built like a tank, bright and focuses down to 25y - but next to my Swaro, there's no comparison.
Everyone who looks through the Weaver can't believe how clear and bright it is. Then they look through the Swaro and they know why it costs 2-3 times the price.
Each to his own, mate, but in much of life, you get what you pay for.
The laws of physics do not apply to politics.